Birmingham Council seeks High Court injunction to ban Union and St George's flags
Birmingham City Council is seeking a High Court injunction to stop activists raising Union and St George's flags, with a possible two-year jail term for contempt.
The Full Story
A plain summary built from the channels that reported this story.
Birmingham City Council is asking the High Court to grant an injunction banning a local activist group from putting up Union and St George's flags across the city. The action targets the group Raise the Colours, which has been erecting flags in the Birmingham area for more than a year.
The council says the move follows an evidence-led process focused on public safety and community cohesion. Critics of the group have called the flag displays divisive and claim they are intended to intimidate ethnic minorities. Raise the Colours rejects that characterisation and says it has no wish to divide communities.
A panel discussion on GB News highlighted the legal controversy. Matthew Stadlen, a journalist and broadcaster, said the prospect of a two-year prison sentence for putting up a flag was excessive. He argued that flags erected without permission on public lampposts were a form of anarchy and that he did not see them as patriotic. He also asked why councils had not sought injunctions over Palestinian or other flags.
Sir Michael Ellis, the former Attorney General, said the injunction was subverting Parliament's wishes. He pointed out that under the Highways Act 1980, unauthorised attachments on the highway carry a maximum fine of £2,500. By using an injunction, councils could escalate breaches to contempt of court, punishable by up to two years in prison. He said this was a proportionality test and a double standards test.
Councillor Jane Baston, cabinet member for Equalities, Communities and Social Justice, said: "The council is taking a lawful proportion as an evidence-led approach to unauthorised attachments on the highway. This includes pursuing injunctive action based on the evidence gathered today. It's our priority to protect public safety, staff and contractor welfare, community cohesion and the responsible use of public funds."
The injunction would specifically target Raise the Colours, but the wider question of flag displays on public property remains contentious. The council has not said whether it plans to apply similar restrictions to other flags.
On screen
Stills are sampled automatically at 60-second intervals. Where shown, the still is the nearest available frame from the relevant broadcast segment and is included to show what was on screen during that part of the broadcast. A still may not correspond to the exact second of a quoted phrase.
Key Claims
Claims reported during this story's coverage, mapped by channel. Ordered by how many channels carried each claim.
| Claim | GB News |
|---|---|
| Birmingham City Council is seeking an injunction against the Raise the Colours group over flag displays. | |
| The injunction could lead to a two-year prison sentence for contempt of court. | |
| The maximum penalty under the Highways Act 1980 for unauthorised highway attachments is a fine of £2,500. |
Channel Perspectives
What each channel focused on, with key quotes.
GB News framed the story as a debate between two guests with opposing views on patriotism and the law. The channel emphasised the potential two-year jail sentence as excessive and highlighted the legal argument that the injunction subverts the penalty set by Parliament. It also gave airtime to the council's official statement but allowed the panel to challenge the decision.
- “They could face two years in jail putting a flag on. It's nonsense.”
- “So on the face of it, the injunction is subverting the wishes of Parliament as to the appropriate penalty for this matter.”
- “I don't need a flag on my street or on my motorway.”
Broadcast Timeline
News broadcasts tracked for this story, in time order.